Srinagar, Feb 17: The Special Anti-Corruption Court here has ordered framing of charges against two former chairmen and other top functionaries of the J&K Bank Ltd in the alleged illegal, backdoor appointments in the bank.
In an order, the Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Tasleem Arief, held that the prosecution has produced on record sufficient material which furnishes ground to proceed against the accused.
“That material gives reason to this court to hold that the accused have prima facie committed the offences punishable under section 5 (1) (d) r/w section 5 (2) of the J&K P. C. Act & section 120 B of the Ranbir Penal Code. Thus, this court would find sufficient material on record which warrants the framing of charge against the accused and try them for the commission of the aforesaid offences.”
The judge did not find any reason to discharge the accused or any of them at this stage and decided to proceed to frame the formal charges against the accused on the next date of hearing on March 10, 2026.
An FIR No. 10/2019 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau Srinagar (ACB) and investigation started after the Bureau received a pseudonymous email complaint in June 2019 alleging large-scale irregularities in recruitment at the bank.
The complaint, later traced out to be that of a female staffer of the Bank (who later disowned it), said that the J&K Bank has made some 3000 illegal appointments since 2014 in the cadre of Bank Attendants & Assistant Bank Associates.
“The appointments were made without proper advertisement or adherence to recruitment norms, including several allegedly irregular appointments in branches such as Dangiwacha, Rohama and Mohali,” it said.
The complaint stated that hundreds of sweepers are working in different branches of the Bank for the past 10 years on meagre pay, but the Bank did not consider them for regularisation and that the chairmen have always cited financial constraints as the reason.
She asked the ACB to hold a high level probe into such Illegal appointments/recruitments.
The ACB treated the communication as a “source report” and proceeded with a formal inquiry, stating that the contents disclosed cognisable offences.
The ACB alleged that two former chairmen of the Bank — Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh and Parvez Ahmad Nengroo — and many other high profile executives had effected the backdoor appointments to adjust their relatives, and other favorites without adhering to the Bank appointment norms and rules.
However, the Bureau instead of taking up all the alleged backdoor appointments for investigation chose only six cases for inquiry, of which four were ordered to be appointed by Sheikh and the two by Nengroo.
It alleges that temporary appointments were granted for 89-day periods and repeatedly extended before being regularised, allegedly in violation of the Bank’s Officers Service Manual. The prosecution contends that the accused conspired to bypass rules, depriving eligible candidates of employment opportunities and causing financial loss to the Bank.
It said that the six beneficiaries collectively drew salaries exceeding ₹41 lakh up to August 2019. It further alleges that one of the beneficiaries was a close relative of a former chairman, suggesting nepotism and misuse of authority.
The agency has cited 47 prosecution witnesses and submitted documentary and circumstantial evidence to support its case, arguing that there is a clear “criminal angle” in the appointment process.
Counsels representing the accused sought discharge of the case arguing that the FIR was invalid because it was based on an anonymous complaint that the alleged sender disowned.
They also contended that employees of the Bank are not public servants under the relevant anti-corruption laws and therefore cannot be prosecuted under those provisions.
The defence further argued that the Bank’s Board of Directors had later approved the engagement of certain employees through a resolution, and maintained that the recruitment decisions were administrative and policy-related rather than criminal.
They contended that the mail received by the ACB discloses a political complaint made to wreak political vendetta from the accused, and that it is an anonymous complaint having no evidentiary value.
After reviewing the chargesheet, witness statements and legal arguments, the court observed that the material on record prima facie indicates a conspiracy to make illegal appointments by bypassing recruitment norms. The judge noted that the prosecution had produced sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
